Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 155, Issue 1, pp 103–111 | Cite as

Noise cancellation in the electrosensory system of the thornback ray; common mode rejection of input produced by the animal's own ventilatory movement

  • John C. Montgomery


  1. 1.

    The use of electroreception in feeding depends on the detection of the weak fields of the prey above the interference produced by the predator's own bioelectric fields.

  2. 2.

    In this study, the ray's ventilatory movements are shown to produce powerful modulation of electroreceptive afferent input.

  3. 3.

    The afferent discharge pattern results mainly from changes of the electric fields within the animal, since it is similar in afferents which innervate ampullary canals of opposite orientation.

  4. 4.

    If inputs from canals of opposite orientation are subtracted by the CNS, the sensitivity to external fields is enhanced, and the ventilatory interference removed by common mode rejection.

  5. 5.

    Recordings from secondary electrosensory neurons provide evidence that the appropriate inputs exist for common mode rejection, and that ventilation related activity is greatly reduced in these cells and virtually absent in recordings from a mesencephalic electrosensory area.



Related Activity External Field Common Mode Opposite Orientation Discharge Pattern 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akoev GN, Ilyinsky OB, Zadan PM (1976) Physiological properties of electroreceptors of marine skates. Comp Biochem Physiol (A) 53:201–209Google Scholar
  2. Bell CC (1982) Properties of a modifiable efference copy in an electric fish. J Neurophysiol 47:1043–1056Google Scholar
  3. Bodznick D, Northcutt RG (1980) Segregation of electro- and mechanoreceptive inputs to the elasmobranch medulla. Brain Res 195:313–321Google Scholar
  4. Bodznick D, Schmidt AW (1984) Somatotopy within the medullary electrosensory nucleus of the little skate,Raja erinacea. J Comp Neurol (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Boord RL, Northcutt RG (1982) Ascending lateral line pathways to the midbrain of the clearnose skate,Raja eglanteria. J Comp Neurol 207:274–282Google Scholar
  6. Dijkgraaf S, Kalmijn AJ (1966) Versuche zur biologischen Bedeutung der Lorenzinischen Ampullen bei den Elasmobranchiern. Z Vergl Physiol 53:187–194Google Scholar
  7. Kalmijn AJ (1974) The detection of electric fields from inanimate and animate sources other than electric organs. In: Fessard A (ed) Electroreceptors and other specialized receptors in lower vertebrates (Handbook of sensory physiology, vol III/3) Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 147–200Google Scholar
  8. Kalmijn AJ (1982) Electric and magnetic field orientation in elasmobranch fishes. Science 218:916–918Google Scholar
  9. McCready PJ, Boord RL (1976) The topography of the superficial roots and ganglia of the anterior lateral line nerve of the smooth dogfish,Mustelus canis. J Morphol 150:527–538Google Scholar
  10. McCreery DG (1977) Two types of electroreceptive lateral lemniscal neurons of the lateral line lobe of the catfishIctalurus nebulosus, connections from the lateral line nerve and steady state frequency response characteristics. J Comp Physiol 113:317–339Google Scholar
  11. Montgomery JC (1980) Dogfish horizontal canal system: responses of primary afferent, vestibular and cerebellar neurons to rotational stimulation. Neurosci 5:1761–1769Google Scholar
  12. Montgomery JC (1981) Origin of the parallel fibers in the cerebellar crest overlying the intermediate nucleus of the elasmobranch hindbrain. J Comp Neurol 202:185–191Google Scholar
  13. Montgomery JC (1984) Frequency response characteristics of primary and secondary neurons in the electrosensory system of the thornback ray. Comp Biochem Physiol (in press)Google Scholar
  14. Murray RW (1965) Receptor mechanisms in the ampullae of Lorenzini of elasmobranch fishes. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 30:233–243Google Scholar
  15. Peters RC, Buwalda RJA (1972) Frequency response of the electroreceptors (‘small pit organs’) of the catfish,Ictalurus nebulosus LeS. J Comp Physiol 79:29–38Google Scholar
  16. Roberts BL, Russell IJ (1972) The activity of lateral line efferent neurons in stationary and swimming dogfish. J Exp Biol 57:435–448Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • John C. Montgomery
    • 1
  1. 1.Neurobiology Unit, Scripps Institution of OceanographyUniversity of CaliforniaLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations